What Makes a Good Judge? Perspectives from Indonesia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-42
Author(s):  
Simon Butt

Abstract In May 2018, Artidjo Alkostar retired from the Supreme Court of Indonesia after a judicial career spanning almost two decades. Over this period, he presided over many of Indonesia’s most prominent and controversial criminal cases and became renowned for routinely rejecting corruption appeals and increasing prison sentences. In the celebratory publications that marked his retirement, Alkostar was held up as a model judge, with senior legal figures, including Supreme Court judges, singling out his strong work ethic, integrity, simplicity of character, and firmness. Curiously absent from the list of praiseworthy attributes were pre-requisites for effective judging, including adequate legal knowledge, transparent legal reasoning and decision-making, objectivity and avoiding the perception of bias. An analysis of Alkostar’s most notorious decisions suggests that he, and the judges who served with him, did not always clearly display these pre-requisites. This article considers what this says about judging in Indonesia and what might, in practice, be the defining characteristics of a good judge there.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 66-79
Author(s):  
S. L. Morozov ◽  

The advent of the electronic currency and the effecting of electronic payments has caused new forms of thefts and types of acquisitive crimes. The judicial investigative practice of criminal cases of embezzlement committed using bank cards and other types of electronic payments has encountered problems with the qualification of such acts. The author identifies the most common enforcement problemsand their causesby a retrospective study of judicial practice, the changing norms of the criminal law. At the same time, a ten-year period of work of the judicial investigating authorities was studied. On the basis of traditional general scientific methods of cognition, as a result of a system-legal analysis of the considered set of specific situations, the author gives an author's view of the complex of causes that cause a lack of uniformity in judicial investigative practice. Using the hermeneutic approach, the author paid special attention to the application by the courts of the interpretation of the criminal law by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in different years. In conclusion, ways of resolving contentious issues of qualification of thefts and fraud in the field of electronic means of payment are proposed. It has been ascertained that high-quality and uniform law enforcement can provide additional clarification on the delimitation of related and competing theft from the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that in general, the current concept of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not contain contradictions with the novels of the criminal law, but can be improved. The rationale and edition of possible additions to the relevant decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are given.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Lieneke Slingenberg

In September 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Hague Court of Appeal that the eviction from basic shelter of a mother and her minor children, who did not have legal residence in the Netherlands, was unlawful. This ruling was instigated by a radically new interpretation of the European Social Charter’s personal scope and caused a major shift in Dutch policy. This article provides a case study into the legal reasoning adopted by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It argues that, instead of relying on legal doctrinal reasoning for justifying the outcome, both courts referred to factors that the general public relies on to assess people’s deservingness of welfare. This finding raises fundamental questions about the relationship between human rights law and deservingness; and calls, therefore, for further research into the relevance of deservingness criteria in judicial discourse.


Legal Theory ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-99
Author(s):  
Andrew Altman

Recently, legal and social thinkers have turned to the idea that actions possess a nonlinguistic meaning, called “expressive meaning.” In this article I examine the idea of expressive meaning and its role in legal reasoning. My focus is on a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving constitutional challenges to election districts drawn on the basis of race. The Supreme Court used the idea of expressive meaning in striking down the districts. After explicating the idea of expressive meaning, I explain and criticize the Court’s reasoning. I distinguish the approach of Justices Thomas and Scalia, who hold that all uses of race in districting do constitutional harm, from that of Justice O’Connor, who distinguishes uses of race that do constitutional harm from those that do not. I contend that Justice O’Connor is right to make the distinction but she draws the line using a questionable standard. A more defensible standard would be more accommodating to the districts that the Court invalidated.


2014 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-480
Author(s):  
Stephen Heaton

THE finality of proceedings, resource constraints, a presumption of guilt, and the existence of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) all combine to outweigh the principle of fairness for a convicted individual. Such was the stark conclusion of the Supreme Court in dismissing Kevin Nunn's application to force prosecution authorities to grant access to material which he believed would help him get his conviction quashed: R. (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2014] UKSC 37, [2014] 3 W.L.R. 77.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Dragutin Avramović

Following hypothesis of Andrew Watson, American professor of Psychiatry and Law, the author analyses certain psychological impacts on behavior of judges and examines the relationship between their idiosyncrasies and their judicial decisions. The survey encompasses the judges of Criminal Department of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Serbia and, also, for comparative reasons, the judges of Criminal Department of the First Basic Court in Belgrade. Considering the main issues there is no great discrepancy between answers given by the judges of the Supreme Court and those of the Basic Court. Most responses of the Serbian judges deviate from Watson's conclusions, namely: they do not admit that they feel frustrated due to heavy caseloads, the significant majority of judges are reluctant to acknowledge their prejudices and influence of biases on their ruling, the significant majority of judges are not burdened with the idea of possible misuse of their discretion, they nearly unanimously deny that public opinion and media pressure affect their rulings, etc. Generally, the judges in Serbia are not willing to admit that they cannot always overcome their own subjectivities.


EMPIRISMA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Isna Wahyudi

Kompilasi Hukum Islam does not regulate interfaith inheritance distinctly. It only requires the testator and the heirs have the same religion. At court, judges of religious courts employ obligatory bequest (waṣiat wājibah) to divide inheritance to non-Muslim heirs, based on jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number 368 K/AG/1995. As the result, different faith still become hindrance for Muslim and non-Muslim to inherit each other due to law enforcement without considering the legal reasoning (ratio legis) of the law. In this case, it is important to investigate the legal reason (ratio legis) of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance as this article tries to do. To do the investigation, the author employs Islamic legal theories (uṣūl fikih) and hermeneutics approach. As the result, the author comes to the conclusion that the ratio legis of the hadith that prohibits the interfaith inheritance is due to hostility and crime element and not due to different faith. Keywords: Interfaith Inheritance, Ratio Legis, Equality


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Jill Cottrell

Examining the Constitution of Kenya 2010, the chapter picks up its concept of public participation in decision-making and a more active form of democracy than simply voting once in five years. In Kenya, Parliament and other legislatures, as well as executive bodies and the judiciary’s administration regularly invite public input into their decision-making processes. The courts have held some legislation, though not at the national level, invalid for want of adequate participation, while the Supreme Court, rather the chief justice, has set out principles of participation in a major judgment. The chapter traces the rationale and the history of this development, and attempts a preliminary assessment of its impact on Kenyan democracy. Suggestions are also made for making public participation more effective.


Author(s):  
Dickson Brice

This chapter selects five issues within the sphere of criminal justice to exemplify how the Irish Supreme Court has made its mark in the field. It looks first at the Court’s approach to the principle that prosecutions should be ended if they are unfair to the defendant and then moves to related issues surrounding use of the Special Criminal Court. It considers whether the Supreme Court has done enough to police the Special Criminal Court and whether reforms are necessary in that domain. In examining the Supreme Court’s views on the right to bail and on the admissibility of evidence which has been obtained unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally (with particular reference to the Damache and JC cases), comparisons are made with other common law jurisdictions. A final section looks at the Supreme Court’s position regarding the retrospectivity of declarations of incompatibility in criminal cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document